Saved From? Saved For? Saved By?

Ok, so, I'm going to do my best to keep this brief and to the point. I have been putting this post off for days but since I was just interrupted 5 minutes ago, I thought I'd go ahead and post it. Who was I interrupted by? A Southern Baptist preacher and his wife. That's right, at 7pm in the evening, they knocked on my door. When I opened the door, he did the first thing a good Baptist does: Handed me a tract. After that, he told me he was a pastor and then told me about his church. I told him I was a pastor too; he didn't know how to respond. So, I said, yeah, I am a teaching pastor at a new Methodist church. His silence ended as soon as I said that. So, what did he say when he found the words to speak again? You probably guessed it, that's right, he said, "Well, are you saved?" Yep! As soon as I said the word "Methodist" he questioned my salvation. He went on, "Even some pastors aren't saved, did you know that? They can have pastor in front of their name and not know the Lord. Do you know the Lord?" I started to get a little irritated with his abrasiveness but I simply nodded and said yes. Having done his so-called kingdom work of advancing tracts, he left feeling like a winner.

This situation, which happened just a few minutes ago, is quite similar to what's going on with all of the Rob Bell stuff. Bell's video for "Love Wins" is quite provocative; I actually showed it to my students in class today and we took a few minutes to cover some of these issues. Anyway, Bell addresses the issue of salvation here, but evidently, some, like John Piper and others were able to infer from the 3 minute video that he was a heretic. John Piper and Justin Taylor both need to issue public apologies as far as I'm concerned. But alas, if God planned for Piper to assault Bell, well, there's nothing that can be done about it, I guess. Anyway, the whole Baptist door-knocker and Bell thing have shown me the centrality of soteriology of salvation in all of this.

In his video, Bell raises these issues, even if kind of indirectly. Essentially, some questions that professed Christians should ask and be able to answer are: What are we saved from? And what are we saved for? And who are we saved by? In my estimation, these questions are not just at the base of Christianity, they are, in many ways, at the very heart of it. These are incredibly significant theological/spiritual questions. Are we saved from God? Hell? Satan? Sin? Self? All of the above? Are we saved for Afterlife? Now? Mission? Evangelism? Are we saved by God? Confessions? Beliefs? Choices? Actions?

Now, I'm not going to deal with the three tenses of salvation as described in the New Testament here (e.g. "have been saved," "are saved," "are being saved"). Instead, let me say a few other things, namely, some things about the questions just raised. As a Christian, I believe that by and through Christ and his faithfulness, we are saved "from" being forever separated from God, Christ's father. This separation is reconciled by way of Christ's work, the truth of which the Spirit reveals and makes known to us. We are saved "for" the purpose of being in relationship with God, Christ's father; ultimately, a relationship that brings him glory. And so, who are we saved by? Well, when it is all said and done, really, we are saved by God the Father. Again, Christ's work makes this possible and the Spirit reveals the validity and veracity of Christ's work to us.

When we go talking about issues of salvation, these, I think are some significant questions worth asking and answering. Really, how you answer these questions is going to say a ton about what you believe about many other things. But the truth is, a concept such as salvation can never really be boiled down to the trite door-to-door knock and tract of a Southern Baptist preacher, who asks, "So, are you saved?" You don't know how bad I wanted to ask him these things: Saved from what, sir? For what, sir? By whom, sir? And what do you mean by "saved" as if it is final? What about the tenses of salvation? What about the choice to step outside of salvation? But really, I knew it would have been a fruitless endeavor to interrogate him in the same way he was interrogating me.

But if I may, let me ask (unassumingly), How might you answer these questions?

"Salvation" & "Rest" In Hebrews

It's no secret that scholars have long debated the notion of "God's rest" in the biblical text known as Hebrews. Similarly, there has been much ink spilt on discussions concerning the concept of salvation in Hebrews (e.g. is it past, present or future oriented or is it all of those?). When taken together, these two concepts (salvation & rest) seem to make Hebrews all the more confusing. For example, in Hebrews 3, in the warning section (7-19), we encounter both concepts but we encounter them in a most peculiar way.

Instead of quoting those verses here, I will just summarize what seems to be a major point of them: These words are an exhortation to first-century believers not to harden their hearts against God as the Sinai / Kadesh-Barnea communities did. But here's the thing, some scholars such as H. Bateman have argued (unconvincingly in my view!) that the only reason that 1st century believers were offered salvation and rest is merely because their predecessors, the Israelites, failed. Put more simply: If the Israelites had not failed, there would have been no room for others in God's salvation plan or Sabbath feast! Personally, I don't agree with this conclusion but on one hand, it does sound like a point the author of Hebrews might be making.

For me, to suggest that resting with God and partaking of salvation depend on how much space God has, seems absurd! Cannot God create more space? Has God limited the number of those who can partake of His rest & salvation? This sounds terribly JW-ish to me! So, I would like to hear some of your thoughts on this matter, what say ye?

A Response To James McGrath (1)

In his initial post, James asked readers to take the “Flaming Meteorite Challenge”. He posited the following theory (in sum): If, just before Peter had reached Cornelius (a non-Jew; see Acts 10) a flaming meteor had struck him dead, would Cornelius, having already been “righteous enough to be noticed by God”, be included among or excluded from the saved?

Probably, most of us have heard this question in one form or another. Usually, it tends to come up in debates between those who have high and low views of baptism. The one with the low view will ask the one with the high view, “So, if John Doe made a confession to Christ but didn’t have the chance to be baptized, you’re saying he wouldn’t be saved?” Personally, I don’t think the Scriptures answer this specific question. Probably, it would have been closer to the context to ask: If Cornelius’ chariot wheels came off and he wrecked and died, would he still be saved? (joking) Anyway…

For Paul, salvation was a process (present, past and future tenses): you have been saved, are being saved and will be saved. It is also clear to me that in the Early Church, initiation for Gentiles was also a process. Recalling the fact that converts had to go through a lengthy process (sometimes even three years; see the Didache among other documents) before gaining membership in the Body, it is safe to say that they were in no rush. In other words, they were not too concerned with a question like James asks and that’s why I contend that they don’t attempt to answer it. So, the question is not one that Scripture itself speaks to. This means that we can only speculate how the first Christians “might” have answered such a question. Still, had they answered it, I don’t think it would have necessarily placed them in the categories that James sets up.

To try to say, for example, that Paul was “either” an inclusivist or exclusivist is misleading. Paul was both at the same time. As I’ve already stated in previous conversations with James, Paul’s view was that while there is always an open invitation to Christ (inclusivism), the reception of that invitation calls and forces one to place their allegiance in Christ alone (exclusivism). Furthermore, Paul believed that Jews/Judeans could maintain their Jewish practices and be Christ-followers as long as they did not mandate those practices (for inclusion into the Body/salvation) upon Gentiles. So, while Paul allows for a type of religious pluralism (e.g. you can maintain the Law of Moses if you are Jewish and you don’t have to if you are Gentile), it is not a type of soteriological pluralism. If anything, Paul argues vehemently against this in his letters and at times, even uses himself as an example.

This is precisely where James’ analogy fails in the highest because, as I’ve shown, Paul is an exclusivist, inclusivist and religious pluralist all at the same time. What Paul is not is a universalist.

James started the conversation off as he did in hopes of drawing some lines of demarcation. However, while labeling can be helpful (from philosophical and theological perspectives), I think the way he has framed his approach does not work. Again, I can’t answer his question from Scripture because that isn’t a question they deal with. I can, however, answer the question based on other theological tenets that I hold, which I believe are derived from Scripture. In fact, I would say that I adopt Paul’s approach and view as my own. That is, I am at once an inclusivist, exclusivist and religious pluralist. I am not a universalist by any means (of the modern term). I believe that while there is always an open invitation to accept Christ (even through a process), that invitation results in a type of exclusivism. I should be clear, the exclusivism does not have to be rigid, mean, arrogant, etc. It can be a type of exclusivism that seeks to live at peace with those who share a different view—even if one, through conversation, seeks to persuade persons to change their views.

I am a religious pluralist in the sense that Paul was too. It is clear that Paul believed that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could work through other faith systems. But it is also clear that Paul believed those faith systems were ultimately inadequate. That is why he offered Christ. Paul did not write off all that had happened to him in Judaism before the Damascus Rd. experience. Looking back, he saw God working in him to bring him to a point of understanding the person and work of Christ. The Mars Hill episode is another good example of where Paul says that God could work through other religions to help persons understand Christ. Now, I don’t think God puts persons in those religions. No, I take the view that He meets them where they are and works with them and attempts to reveal His full truth to them. So, to reiterate, I transcend the barriers of James’ analogy because I am at once an inclusivist, exclusivist and pluralist (as qualified above).

Apart from the whole “Scripture not dealing with this question” issue, part of my reason for responding this way was to also get away from the “quick-to-label” actions of religious persons today. A more detailed explanation was needed, that is, a more defined answer than just taking James’ test and concluding that I am of this or that persuasion. Now, if I could humor James and answer his question about Cornelius, I would say this: Given my theology, firstly, I would say that Cornelius will be judged by God alone and ultimately nobody else can make that call, but secondly, given what we know about salvation in Christ and membership (for Gentiles) in the Early Church, Cornelius had not been through the catechetical process, so, it would appear that, had a meteor hit him, they would not have considered him part of the Body of Christ, which means they would not have pegged him as one in a saving relationship with Christ.

On a closing note, because this always comes up in an exclusivistic conversation, I would just say that at present, my view is that for those who have never heard of/about Christ, these persons may be judged by God in accordance with their behavior/knowledge about the divine. That said, God does not owe them salvation or anything else, the fact that they get to come before Him is grace enough in and of itself. God is not culpable or fit to blame because they didn’t hear and thus, He cannot be blamed if He renders them lost. It was their faith/actions that led to that result, not God’s.

I’ll graciously await James’ reply realizing in the meantime that if I’ve been arrogant in any way, I’m sorry and did not intend to be. Also, for others who want to be part of this ongoing conversation, feel free to jump right in—so long as you’re civil. Otherwise we might wish a flaming meteorite upon you and God knows we don’t want to have to debate your salvation.

Link to James' first post: Flaming Meteorite Challenge